Chabot College
Academic Services
Program Review Report
2017 -2018
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME
DOCUMENTATION
5/1/16
Contact: Diane Zuliani
FINAL 9/24/15
1
Appendix B: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop”
discussion
ARTH 1
FALL 2015
3
3
100%
SPRING 2016
Diane Zuliani
Form Instructions:
•
•
•
•
CompleteaseparateAppendixB2formforeachCourse-Levelassessmentreportedinthis
ProgramReview.ThesecoursesshouldbelistedinAppendixB1:StudentLearningOutcomes
AssessmentReportingSchedule.
Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on the
course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES
INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER
BY COURSE« )
(CLO) 1: COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE BASIC
VISUAL ELEMENTS.
(CLO) 2: ANALYZE AND EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLES
OF DESIGN.
(CLO) 3: IDENTIFY, EVALUATE, AND DEFINE TWODIMENSIONAL AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEDIA
(CLO) 4: MAKE CRITICAL, AESTHETIC VALUE
JUDGEMENTS ABOUT 2-D AND 3-D ART.
2
Defined
Target Scores*
(CLO Goal)
70 percent of
students score
2, 3, or 4
(meet the
CLO)
70 percent of
students score
2, 3, or 4
(meet the
CLO)
70 percent of
students score
2, 3, or 4
(meet the
CLO)
70 percent of
students score
2, 3, or 4
(meet the
CLO)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
86.1 percent of
students
(average of
three sections)
met the target
86.1 percent of
students
(average of
three sections)
met the target
84.9 percent of
students
(average of
three sections)
met the target
78.8 percent of
students
(average of
three sections)
met the target
« If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate success
for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on the
eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
A. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
Scores exceed target for student success.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
CLO and assessment target appropriate.
B. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
Scores exceed target for student success.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
CLO and assessment target appropriate.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
Scores exceed target for student success.
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
CLO and assessment target appropriate.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4: (PREVIOUSLY CLO 3)
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this
course level outcome?
3
Scores exceed target for student success
2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences
and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have?
CLO and assessment target appropriate.
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the
prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
In the last assessment of ARTH 1, student performance on this CLO (which
at that time was CLO #3) far exceeded the target, to an extent that was not
justifiable. The inflated number was due to the simplification of the museum
visit assignment, which gives students an opportunity to interpret and
critically assess original works of art. An older version of this assignment
have proved too challenging, which resulted in low outcomes. However, in
simplifying the assignment I apparently over-simplified it (by asking mostly
subjective questions) because this outcome was almost 100 percent. So I
rewrote the museum visit assignment once again so that it now ties subjective
responses to the course’s academic content and now, with an 80% success
rate, I believe the CLO and its assessment target are set appropriately.
It has not been easy to strike the right balance with this assessment, because
this is the first visit to any art museum for many ARTH 1 students, and just
being in such alien surroundings is distracting and even, for some,
disempowering, making even a straightforward assignment too challenging.
My goal is for students to enjoy their visit to the museum but also produce
thoughtful critiques and value judgments. Again, based on this assessment, I
believe the CLO and its assessment target are appropriate.
2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course-level and programmatic
strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline
determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights?
In Fall 2015 a new CLO was added, but it was too late to incorporate it into the
semester’s curriculum. It will require the addition of new content related to art
historical methodologies, and will probably best be handled at the beginning of
the semester. The development of the new course content and determining the
means of assessing it are underway now.
4
Other than that, my main reflection at this moment is that the number of
students exceeding the target goals and—even more than that—the extremely
high retention rates in the three sections of ARTH 1 herein assessed show that
the course content, the instructor, and Chabot students work well together.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
P
Change to CLO or rubric
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: ART HISTORY
• PLO#1:Develop the ability to interpret artistic content through the analysis of
subject matter and form.
• PLO#2:Acquire a critical understanding of art in historical eras that accounts for
changing cultural frameworks over time.
•
PLO#3:none
•
PLO#4:none
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
Our PLOs are appropriate for an introduction to art/ art appreciation course like this one
(ARTH 1).
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
The program strength is its faculty and their commitment to best practices, discipline and
pedagogical standards, and object-based learning. Instruction in the Chabot Art History
discipline helps the diverse body of Chabot students capitalize on their own existing
strengths to become more visually, historically, and critically astute.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
The most important action we can take to enhance the learning of students completing the
Art History program is to ensure that they have inexpensive and open access to original
art. The best way of ensuring this is to support the campus art gallery as per repeated
5
pleas in this and previous program reviews.
Another important action we can take to enhance the learning of students completing the
Art History program is to ensure that they have access to a classroom that meets
fundamental discipline standards, which includes: high-resolution image projection; a
screen large enough to accommodate two adequately-sized side-by-side images; sensitively
dimmable lights to accommodate a range of image types, presentations and activities; and
raked seating, or seating that enables all students to see the screen easily. This is the case
today in our use of Room 804, but given the few large-lecture facilities on campus and the
number of disciplines moving into the large-lecture format and needing to share 804,
facilities required by Art History will need to be installed in more than just Room 804.
6